I've been working as the Social Media Editor and a staff writer at Forbes since October 2011. Prior to that, I worked as a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research. Follow me on Twitter - @thealexknapp. You can email me at aknapp@forbes.com

In one of the most spectacularly mis-prioritized state budgets in recent memory, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D), is suggesting over $50 million in cuts to education – while preserving $43 million in tax breaks for the Ark Encounter, a creationist amusement park centered around a life-sized Noah’s Ark. The park is sponsored by Answers In Genesis, a non-profit organization that promotes a “literalist” interpretation of the Book of Genesis while promoting an anti-evolution (and other sciences) agenda.

There are a number of reasons why this is a bad idea. First of all, it makes no sense to cut education at this point without reforms that go along with it to ensure that education services don’t suffer as a result. This budget doesn’t do that. Education dollars are an investment in the future – both culturally and economically. Moreover, a tax subsidy in support violates – in spirit if not in letter – the sacred American principle of the separation of Church and State.

Moreover, in a time of austerity, surely it makes most sense to eliminate wasteful subsidies first, rather than essential public services. Especially subsidies that are of dubious value to begin with, whether its this “Ark Park” or a football stadium.

There are religious considerations, too. I’m not an evangelical myself, but hostility to evolution has caused a rift among evangelical Christians. For example, Liberal evangelical Fred Clark has a problem with this and other anti-science promotions by his fellow evangelicals, because he thinks that they’re not only factually wrong, but also drive people away from evangelical churches.

Interestingly enough, this is actually quite an old conflict within the Church. The great Church Father Origen, among others, argued for allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Even back in the 4th century, St. Augustine took his fellow Christians to task for literally interpreting Genesis. He wrote in his, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

This goes back to points that Karen Armstrong made in her tour de force book, The Case for God – the idea that religion isn’t about teaching facts – it’s about teaching truths in the form of mythos. That is, teaching truth in the form of practice and symbolic language. It’s about using poetry and allegory to guide people in understanding the universe and their place in it, whether those allegories are about seven days of creation, the will of Allah, the divine truths of Brahma, achieving Nirvana, or following the Tao.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I live in KY AND AM ABSOLUTELY APPALLED. ESPECIALLY AS THIS STATE IS SO LACKING IN EDUCATION (GREW UP ELSEWHERE THANK HEAVENS). and the creationist museum teaches kids that biblical characters rode dinosaurs- seriously.. so it’s a double corruption- I am glad my children were not raised in this education wasteland

If there is an active God, it is a red herring to this discussion what His name is, or which translation of scripture we use (its another topic entirely). Even if God is the flying spaghetti monster, but is active in this world, then miraculous intervention is a quite plausible way to account for man’s observations.

Next, I didn’t claim that the whole of the Bible was literal. In fact, I very clearly claimed that some sections are clearly metaphor or allegory, but that the account of Genesis 1 is intended as literal, not metaphorical. Chapter 2 goes back and re-tells the story focusing on man, but really does not conflict with chapter 1 in any meaningful way.

Next, we are both arguing over our assumptions- my belief in an active God (theism), and your belief in the lack thereof (atheism). But you are no more able to prove your assumption than I am (I would argue much less so). Moreover, I clearly stated that as my begining assumption- the point was not to argue about the existance of God, but merely to show that if one starts with the theistic assumption, a literal interpretation of Genesis is not problematic and is, in fact, necessary.

It seems in general, that most of you actually agree with my logic applied to these assumptions, but disagree with the assumptions themselves.

Now, many of you went to other arguments about the existence of God, and rightfully so because that is my foundational assumption.

However, a comment trail is hardly the place to have a good debate, but why not give you my evidence?

First, there is morality- whence comes morality if not from God? If there is any absolute morality, there must be a reason for it. If there is no absolute moral lawgiver, than all morality must be non-absolute, and I’ve yet to meet a person who really thinks morality is non-absolute.

Similarly I’ve never found any rational person who really thinks that truth is non-absolute. But if truth is absolute, and reason is a means of discovering it, why should this be so? Only because we live in a universe of order- where things happen in the same way over and over again. But how did the universe become one of order? My conclusion is that it is because it was ordered. The very tools we have for scientific research work because the supernatural has been at work to order our universe.

Anyway, I’ll leave it there, though there are many arguments beside these, and even these I haven’t done justice. I will encourage you all to open up your minds- seek out the arguments of those who disagree with you on these things, and wrestle through them. I’ll give you three quick sources.

First, I’d recommend Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”. It is compelling, though not directly answering this question- it is more focusing on the lack of debate on this question that goes on in academia.

Secondly, look at some of the material from the “Answers in Genesis” group referenced in this article. you may be surprised if you look at it with a truly open mind.

Finally, look into some of the modern Christian apologists and their arguments for the existence of God. I’d recommend starting with Norman Geisler.

I live in Grant County. I have raised four children (two of which are still in the middle/high school and two of which have graduated). All of my children received superior education. All of them A/B students (except when they were screwing around).

I grew up in Northern Kentucky, in the Kenton/Boone areas. I went to those schools. I had my two eldest in them until my eldest went to Kindergarten and came home with papers learning the letter A. What? She already knew her entire alphabet, numbers 1-10 and could write her name. Needless to say, I had her advanced to first grade.

We then transferred her in second grade to a different school in Kenton County. Let me keep it short-the teachers didn’t care, the parents didn’t care and the students definitely didn’t care. I watched 9 year-olds smoke and cuss and hang out in parks.

I had it and moved to Grant. That was in 1996. Wow, what a difference! Needless to say we stayed. When you can’t find parking except in a muddy field down the road because everyone turns out for awards for academic achievements…well, enough said.

We are not lacking in education in Grant County.

We are lacking in jobs and entertainment.

This park (while I would rather have a Kings Island type) represents jobs. I don’t care if its low wages, our teens need a place to start and our moms’ need part-time employment close to home to help their families.

And it represents opportunity. A place to go. There isn’t even a bowling alley or a movie theater. Our families need a place to go to find local entertainment.

With this park, more businesses will want to build here.

They are doing some sorely needed road construction.

I could care less what incentives they give someone to help grow our community-it just needs to grow. We don’t want to become massive, just a little bigger.

I can say this-if there are not some rides to attract, the visitors will be nowhere near their estimate, but it still will be a significant number.

Whether the people behind this park are a good investment or not remains to be seen, but at least our leaders are trying.

Idiot, Mathematics is the necessary skill. Knowing our “origins” does not make you a competent Engineer or even a Doctor. And let me add, when you idiot Evolutionists produce someone the caliber of Isaac Newton, then I will take you seriously. I mean, who do you really have? Hawking? What is his skill other than drooling?